Well, that's a good thing. Hopefully it lasts and Hamas learns a valuable lesson. Or is that too much hopeful thinking again?

The cease fire is temporary, Israel initiated it to allow the Palestinians a lull from fighting for humanitarian reasons (as noted- for the 3rd time in the past 19 days~), hostilities will resume after 00:00 (or when the Palestinian will break it, whatever comes first).

Hida, can you stop stalking me? I'm tired of reading your attacks on me that have nothing to do with the threads topic. You are constantly following me around, harassing me, nothing is going to happen, Im not going anywhere, maybe you ought to cut out the poor behavior?

Jeff, the problem is your on record with extremist/racist/bigoted views, you should be the very last person to call out folks for their alleged bigotry.

I respect the three religions of Abraham, where you hate Islam by informing me of this extreme view of yours in thread after thread. You have no logical reason/proof to label me as any kind of hater.

Back IN 2012, HE WAS stalking me, SO I GUESS IT'S YOUR TURN,John..

It's amazing- I support some limited security Expansion of Israel's area- the Northern Golan,,etc. But I really feel there is room for " a Palestinian state."

And I believe that state is entitled to catch grouper and sea Brean in their coastal waters. I guess that makes me a 'Commie'.

__________________
The trout who swims against the current gets the most oxygen..

The cease fire is temporary, Israel initiated it to allow the Palestinians a lull from fighting for humanitarian reasons (as noted- for the 3rd time in the past 19 days~), hostilities will resume after 00:00 (or when the Palestinian will break it, whatever comes first).

Gentlemen please take your argument on who is/isn't racist back to Politics Central where no on frankly cares.

Now then.

marktwain,

We have the luxury of thinking that way because of the extended peace we enjoy here in North America. The sad fact is that war as 'collective punishment' is returning to the norm. With no front lines and everything a target, one man's firing position is inevitably another's home. You don't have to like it, I certainly don't. We do have to accept it as a fact in order to understand these conflicts as we try to analyse what is happening.

__________________
Any metaphor will tear if stretched over too much reality.

Gentlemen please take your argument on who is/isn't racist back to Politics Central where no on frankly cares.

Now then.

marktwain,

We have the luxury of thinking that way because of the extended peace we enjoy here in North America. The sad fact is that war as 'collective punishment' is returning to the norm. With no front lines and everything a target, one man's firing position is inevitably another's home. You don't have to like it, I certainly don't. We do have to accept it as a fact in order to understand these conflicts as we try to analyse what is happening.

Well said. I find it interesting that we are discussing merits of collective punishment in a war forum. War is typically always about collective punishment.

Gentlemen please take your argument on who is/isn't racist back to Politics Central where no on frankly cares.

Now then.

marktwain,

We have the luxury of thinking that way because of the extended peace we enjoy here in North America. The sad fact is that war as 'collective punishment' is returning to the norm. With no front lines and everything a target, one man's firing position is inevitably another's home. You don't have to like it, I certainly don't. We do have to accept it as a fact in order to understand these conflicts as we try to analyse what is happening.

Gix- get real. While "Hamas" needs to be driven out and an open election is needed, in Gaza, "the Palestinians' are not entitled to 'collective punishment.'

This is what happens to people when nations fight. In an ideal world only the leaders would meet on the field of combat and have a go at it one on one. But since ideal is just a fantasy, the regular populace has to suffer, or succeed, collectively. I would think that on a military history website you would be better aware of this than most.

This is what happens to people when nations fight. In an ideal world only the leaders would meet on the field of combat and have a go at it one on one. But since ideal is just a fantasy, the regular populace has to suffer, or succeed, collectively. I would think that on a military history website you would be better aware of this than most.

The problem is that collective punishment of civilians is forbidden, in so many words, in Hague IV 1907, Geneva IV 1949 and Additional Protocols 1977.

However, what most people, including a couple of hapless posters over here, fail to notice is that those prohibitions apply to the situation of a territory occupied by the enemy. When the Germans massacred all of Lidice in reprisal for the death of Heydrich, that was collective punishment, for the purposes of that prohibition under international law; when the Allies nuked Hiroshima, that was not collective punishment for those purposes.

The principle is pretty obvious; a combatant is responsible for the civilians in his power. Safeguarding the lives of the Czechs in Lidice was the responsibility of the German government; safeguarding the lives of the Japanese in Hiroshima was the responsibility of the Japanese government.
It's exactly the same logic according to which you can strive to kill an enemy soldier as best as you can, as long as he's free to try to return the favor, but once he's a POW you can no longer.

Currently, Israeli troops are occupying a part of Gaza; any civilians still there are in their power, and they cannot be subjected to collective punishments. All the civilians in the part of Gaza under the control of the Gazan government are in the power of the Gazan government, and if the Israelis fire ordnance at that area and happen to destroy a dozen houses that are currently being used for military purposes, that is, you guessed, no collective punishment.

If anything, a (political, not legal) case could be made that Hamas is occupying Gaza (or part of it, as of now) at gunpoint, so they are the occupying troops there and they have been inflicting collective punishments on the Gazans for years by now. Paradoxical, eh.

excerpt
Obama is a president of "retrenchment," the word Americans use to describe their retreat from the foreign policy front. Obama didn't bomb Syria, refused to send ground troops back into Iraq and opted not to intervene when Russia annexed the Crimean Peninsula. "We are no longer in a Cold War. There's no Great Game to be won," Obama said last autumn in a speech to the United Nations. In a more recent address, he said: "Just because we have the best hammer does not mean that every problem is a nail." Thus, John Kerry's mission: to construct an effective foreign policy without the help of a hammer.
"The president appreciates Kerry's tireless work ethic and willingness to take diplomatic risks," says Obama's deputy security advisor Ben Rhodes. Such qualities, he continues, are "well-suited to a time when diplomacy has moved to the forefront of our foreign policy."
---------------------------------------------------

excerpt
One day in May 2013, after speaking with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas about the conditions for an agreement between the two sides, Kerry had a spontaneous idea: He had his delegation stop at a shawarma restaurant in Ramallah. The staff rushed to serve him amid much excitement as Kerry, dressed a dark suit with a strawberry-red tie, ordered a turkey shawarma. "Man, this is good," he exulted as he ate.
The anecdote is a perfect illustration of Kerry's way of approaching people, but the event in Ramallah causes unexpected ripples. Republicans accuse Kerry of having shown too much support of the Palestinians while Israelis say he's portraying himself as a savior. Since then, they have snidely called him the shawarma diplomat.
----------------------------------------------------------------
excerpt
According to Obama advisor Ben Rhodes, the two men have a "close relationship" but for observers, it is obvious that is not a friendship. The two have, however, known each other for a long time. Indeed, one could even say Kerry discovered Obama. When Kerry was running for president 10 years ago, he asked the then widely unknown Democratic politician from Illinois to speak at the Democratic National Convention. The appearance made Barack Obama world famous, while Kerry's election loss that year was extremely difficult for him. To describe it as "deeply disappointing is an understatement," David McKean says.
Although Obama thanked Kerry for the opportunity to speak at the convention, he made Hillary Clinton his first secretary of state and had hoped to replace her with Susan Rice. Kerry only got the job because Rice made misleading statements about the attack on the American consulate in Libya in 2012, making herself politically untenable.
The relationship between the two men can be summed up in an encounter that took place in October 2012. It was the height of the presidential election campaign and Obama wanted Kerry to help him practice for a crucial debate. Kerry was supposed to play Mitt Romney, Obama's Republican rival, in a practice duel at a hotel in Virginia. Obama's advisors had asked Kerry to annoy Obama as much as possible while he spoke.
Kerry argued shrewdly, pushed the president around and cut in so many times that Obama snarled that he didn't constantly want to be interrupted. Ultimately Obama stood up and left the room, making it clear that he thought Kerry's behavior was insolent. Kerry serves a function for Obama, but he isn't part of the president's inner circle.

It takes someone with a big enough ego to see themselves as POTUS to imagine they could actually be capable of negotiating peace in this region. Of course envisioning Middle East peace requires a good deal of imagination to begin with so what should we expect?

__________________
Any metaphor will tear if stretched over too much reality.

IDF forces in the Gaza Strip found a Hamas manual on “Urban Warfare,” which belonged to the Shuja’iya Brigade of Hamas’ military wing, the Al-Qassam Brigades. The manual explains how the civilian population can be used against IDF forces and reveals that Hamas knows the IDF is committed to minimizing harm to civilians. Throughout Operation Protective Edge, Hamas has continuously used the civilian population of Gaza as human shields. The discovery of a Hamas “urban warfare” manual by IDF forces reveals that Hamas’ callous use of the Gazan population was intentional and preplanned.
This Hamas urban warfare manual exposes two truths: (1) The terror group knows full well that the IDF will do what it can to limit civilian casualties. (2) The terror group exploits these efforts by using civilians as human shields against advancing IDF forces.